Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lighthouses

Portal:Lighthouses

Portal:Lighthouses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected, unneeded, stillborn portal.

Ten never-updated selected articles created in March 2016.

Three never-updated selected bios created in March 2016. Two are C class and one is start. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Small but perfectly formed portal bringing together articles, images, and DYK’s about lighthouses. Yes it may be in need of refreshing and makeover, but that is not a good reason for deletion...Jokulhlaup (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jokulhlaup, it's pity that you didn't state upfront that you are the portal's creator. That fact adds important context to your demonstrably false assertion that this a small but perfectly formed portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Nine of the ten selected articles are GA and FA rated, the fix is easily done by adding transclusions to the articles involved. The biographies are another story though... as I am not seeing any available articles that could be used. I am saying keep because I do not feel the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater here. Adding a message in the bio section encouraging editors to collaborate for GA articles might be a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on Portal:Lighthouses, provided that the portal maintainer implements transclusion. The portal has | 16 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 844 for the article. The portal maintainer has responded, and a supporting comment has recommended transclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I updated or added transclusions for all of the selected articles. The biographies have been replaced by a message encouraging editors to help by commenting at the related Wikiproject. I also recommend a link be added to the bottom of Infobox lighthouse like it is for Infobox Anime and Manga with the "footer" [1]. It will bring more editors to view the portal that way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep not a very active portal, but well formed with some attention will be even better. --Muhandes (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand the selection criteria for the content. Do I spot an over-representation for USA and Australia? A few Wikimedia projects have a WikiProject lighthouses which usually follows some kind of official registry to determine notability. Was some international criterion used here? Is one even available? Nemo 09:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• When it comes to the Wikiproject there are only 19 GA rated articles to represent thousands of lighthouses around the world in over 100 different countries. [2], [3] The more widespread problem is a lack of editors to bring articles up to this status, so encouraging new people to join Wikiprojects in any way shape or form would be a great benefit. A criteria would be helpful, but for the time being it is broad in terms of what countries should be represented over others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If the universe to select from is less than 20 items, some may say the topic is too narrow for a portal (not by itself, maybe, but as things stand). Nemo 14:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The topic isn't too narrow as there are plenty of Lighthouse articles to work on. Just FYI, the total is 20 if you include the one FA article combined with the 19 GA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Nemo is right that this is a narrow topic, and @Knowledgekid87 response is just more of their usual data-free proof by assertion. See the data which I posted below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• And.... Brownhairedgirl comes by once again to denounce other editor's time and work as complete garbage. This is a Wikipedia problem, not a portal problem. "Narrow" is your opinion as there are 18,600 lighthouses worldwide in over 100 different countries. Each has its own story which goes beyond navigation with the history of the keepers and conservation efforts that are ongoing to save the structures. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yet again, Knowledgekid87 asserts as fact an outright untruth. I did not denounce other editor's time and work as complete garbage, or state anything to that effect. And in any case, WP:IWORKEDSOHARD is no defence against deletion.

It is sad to see that KK87 continues to sustain their reality-denying stance. There may well be 18,600 lighthouses worldwide (I haven't checked), but there is no automatic presumption of WP:Notability for lighthouses, and KK87 offers no basis for assuming that they all pass WP:GNG.

Regardless of what articles may be created in future, the fact remains that a portal can be built only from articles which actually exist and are of decent quality. right now Category:Lighthouses articles by quality shows only a total of only 2,252 actual articles on individual lighthouses, of which over 91% are stub-class or start-class.

But as usual, KK87 prefers to whine and make false accusations rather than discuss actual data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I admit the data you present is factual regarding the pool of GA and FA articles to choose from. My argument is that portals can encourage editors to contribute more if properly linked to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87, you and other portal fans have made that argument before, but none of you have ever presented any evidence that this is the case.

However, there is good evidence that this is very unlikely. First, portals have very low pageviews, so they aren't seen by enough editors to encourage them to contribute more. And secondly, if an editor visited the portal in the hope of finding a guide to lighthouses which need a new or improved article, they would find absolutely nothing whatsoever to tell them to what's needed. So the chances of you being right about this are near zero. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Narrow topic, and unwanted by readers, maintainers and WikiProjects. Hideously unbalanced set of quality articles.

Lighthouses are are not a broad topic. They are just one type of maritime navigation aid, and a small subset even of the of class the physical navigation aids; the are many more marker bouys than there are lighthouses, and many more unlit beacons than there are lighthouses.

Wikipedia has quite good coverage of lighthouses, but even so Category:Lighthouses articles by quality shows only a total of only 2,252 actual articles on individual lighthouses, of which over 91% are stub-class or start-class. There are no FA-Class Lighthouses articles, and only 19 GA-Class Lighthouses articles.

The set of GA-class lighthouses si also hideously unbalanced: of those 19 article, 12 are in the US, 3 are in Australia, 2 are in Scotland, and only 2 are in other countries (i.e. Estonia and Gibraltar). 11 of the 12 US lighthouses are in Connecticut; that's 58% of the total in one state of the United States.

The set of 57 B-Class Lighthouses articles is little better. Of the articles on actual lighthouses, there are:

• 23 in Australia
• 18 in the US
• 2 in Canada
• 2 in France (tho 1, Île Vierge, is really only start-class)
• 1 in Guernsey
• 1 in Ireland
• 1 in New Zealand: Dog Island Lighthouse
• 1 in Jamaica, but Morant Point Lighthouse is nowhere near B-class; it's somewhere between stub-class and start-class

The result is a hideously unbalanced set of articles: only 3 of the 76 GA-class and B-class articles are about lighthouses outside the Anglosphere.

Congratulations to all the editors who developed these articles, but until their good work is matched by other efforts to build coverage of lighthouses outside the Anglosphere, the set of quality articles in just too lop-sided to make an unbiased portal without compromising quality.

The WikiProject Lighthouses is tagged as semi-active. It has never shown any interest in the portal: the only mentions on its talk page have been the current MFD notice, and a 2016 announcement of the portal's creation, which got no responses.

This is yet another hobby portal, created without prior discussion with the relevant WikiProject, and which disregards basic principles of balance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• So get some editors to edit the articles.... as I said above, how is one supposed to represent the world which is a broad area? I guarantee that someone somewhere is going to complain because their country isn't represented. It encourages editors to build articles up so they can be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: this is not complicated. Represent the world by having a reasonable sample of articles from around that world. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and building that collection takes time … but creating the portal before the articles is putting the cart before the horse. Given the v low readership of portals, I see zero basis for your unevidenced assertion that a portal which violates WP:NPOV is a tool which encourages editors to build articles up so they can be included. It's just a breach of NPOV, which is a core policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, well made, no obvious maintenance problems. —Kusma (t·c) 16:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Kusma, the problems are with narrow and unbalanced scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - The argument against this portal is being made both by User:BrownHairedGirl and by User:Knowledgekid87. Low readership, and systemic bias in the selection of articles, and the arguments being made in favor of the portal don't hold up. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: Valid points made by BHG. Low readership, poor maintenance, and supporters' arguments hold zero water. ToThAc (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is an insult to those who have fixed up this portal to say that maintenance is an issue. Everything on the OP's deletion rationale has been addressed. The issue is that not enough editors are at hand to bump articles up to GA and FA status leaving the "selected article" choices limited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• KK87, if you wan to try to take offence, you will find plenty of opportunities on Wikipedia. However, in cases like this, offence-taking is simply a sign of WP:OWNership.

The long-term neglect is an issue. The portal was fixed up only when nominated for deletion, which is usually a reliable sign that maintenance will cease gain is the MFD is closed as keep.

And if there aren't enough articles of sufficient quality, then the result is a narrow and unbalanced portal. Trying to create the portal before the articles exist is putting the cart before the horse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually in this case it is calling out edits by multiple editors whom have helped with this portal. Deletion discussions are meant to highlight issues with content. When you say "maintenance will cease gain" no matter what your "reliable" signs are you are trying to predict the future. Are the cubs going to win the world series next year? Reliable signs have told me that because they haven't one in decades before and only won recently that.... nah. Your strongest argument is "aren't enough articles of sufficient quality" which you repeated above. I admit that this can not be fixed in the near term as it is a Wikipedia issue with a lack of editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I also want to add that usually in deletion discussions, work that is done by other editors during the duration is mentioned not ignored. Repeating the same argument of "poor maintenance" with no regard for the work done to address the problems isn't helpful. Assuming the future because of whatever also isn't helpful nor is it a strong argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

KK87 says Deletion discussions are meant to highlight issues with content. Not so: deletion discussions cover many issues, and this case there is no content, because portals are not content.

As KK87 knows, the tweaks during discussion were not ignored. They were not as a very poor indicator of the ongoing maintenance which will be needed.

And no, there is no cast-iron certainty that maintenance won't continue. All we can do is to assess probabilities, and there are several factors which make it highly unlikely: the pattern with other portals which are neglected until an MFD prompts a brief flurry of activity; the lack of editors which KK87 notes; and the long-term lack of interest from the WikiProject.

But the nub of the whole thing is that KK87 agrees that there aren't enough articles to make a viable portal, but still wants the portal kept, even tho KK87 agrees that this can not be fixed in the near term as it is a Wikipedia issue with a lack of editors. Wow. YCMTSU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually now looking at Moxy's comment below there appears to be numerous solutions to the problems put forward. The "Keep for now" opinions are a consensus that things have not been tried out that could help get editors to view the portal and edit the articles. Again... you cant predict if these remedies will or will not work as they have not been tried in this age of smart phones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep for now and encourage improvements. Easily improvable and expandable, a broad enough scope, and the use of article transclusions directly on the main portal page, such as with the {{Transclude random excerpt}} template to expand it with quality articles, would be a great start, providing up-to-date content for Wikipedia's WP:READERS. It would also be nice if any improvements weren't immediately reverted at a later time by those that are typically for the deletion of portals, though. After all, those that demand maintenance shouldn't prevent it from occurring after its occurrence. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if those who set out to make widespread changes to a whole swathe of portals didn't misrepresent unilateral restructurings as maintenance. It would be nice if they sought consensus for their actions instead of trying to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. And when their WP:FAITACCOMPLI is challenged, it would be nice if those who tried to create the WP:FAITACCOMPLI accepted offers to work collabaratively to open an RFC to seek WP:CONSENSUS.

But then, if the hardcore portal-fans had engaged in consensus-building, then we wouldn't have had the many forests of rotting content forks, or the hundreds of portals without any WikiProject engagement, or the wave of automated portalspam, or the howls of "war on portals" when the spam was removed, or the attempts to remove tracking categories because they "are used by deletionists", or any of the rest of the nonsense.

In this case, the fact remains there simply isn't a big enough set of decent-quality articles which provides a balanced overview of the topic. No amount of waffle about transclusions or whatever alters the fact that there aren't enough decent articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep for now WP:NORUSH and encourage improvements. Easily improvable and expandable. Wm335td (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH is an essay, not a policy or guideline. And it's about articles, whereas this is not content: it is a navigational tool.

How exactly do you propose to fix the fact that there aren't enough decent-quality articles to build a balanced portal on this narrow topic?

No amount of tinkering with the portal will create new recognised content, and without the content, the showcase is redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saying, but this is ironic seeing the essays that were thrown for other portals facing deletion. Why does all of a sudden one essay become relevant while the others do not? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87, it would help a lot if you read what you were replying to before you reply. As I wrote it's about articles, whereas this is not content: it is a navigational tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete even with improvements on the topic at hand, a portal does nothing to bring eyeballs to an admittedly narrow topic. Lighthouses are not inherently notable. There's no evidence that any WikiProjects are supporting and maintaining content relevant to the portal. Those arguing "keep" are just throwing around pointless invalid arguments like "I like it" or "give it time, it'll grow on its own". The latter has been proven false countless times before, as many portals kept in deletion discussions from as far back as 2010 have been re-nominated and successfully deleted the second time around due to not a damn thing changing. Even if every lighthouse article on Wikipedia were FA-quality, it's still an inherently finite and niche topic that clearly has little support from the community at large, and not even "make the portal 20% cooler" type arguments will ever help it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is that these are your opinions. Can you prove that lighthouses are not notable? Can you prove that the topic is narrow when there are over 18,000 lighthouses worldwide in over 100 countries? The sheer amount of lighthouses out there and all of the sources covering the people who maintained them and their histories says otherwise. I happen to be a member of the Wikiproject, do my contributions not count all of a sudden? As for other portals we have WP:OSE for that argument, this portal has never before been nominated for deletion. Finally I find "Even if every lighthouse article on Wikipedia were FA-quality, it's still an inherently finite and niche topic that clearly has little support from the community at large" troubling as it sounds like you are saying that the topic as a whole is worthless and that editors shouldnt even bother to strive for FA rated lighthouse articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87, please read what TenPoundHammer avctually wrote: Lighthouses are not inherently notable. See that word "inherently"? You missed it, and it's crucial, because the point that TPH is making is that lighthouses have no presumption of WP:Notability. So the notability of any lighthouse needs to be established individually per WP:GNG.

So the even if there are 18,000 lighthouses in the world, that doesn't mean that they all notable. It's possible that we may already have an article on every notable lighthouse; we don't know until they are assessed.

And no, TPH is not in any way saying that topic as a whole is worthless. That's a complete distortion of TPH's words. TPH correctly said that its' an inherently finite and niche topic. That means that while we may have valuable articles on the topic, it's too narrow to make a the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Another case study of why so many Portals are abandoned with no future purpose given WP alternatives. Lets be specific over what we are discussing on this small but perfectly formed portal:

1. For content, a link to the Main Article on Lighthouses, which itself is tagged since June 2016 for having sections with no sources? There is a random "Selected Article" link to Dubh Artach, which was not mentioned in the Main Article, so it is not clear how this was chosen. There is a random "Selected Image" of Berry Head Lighthouse, which again, was not mentioned in the Main Article, so it is not clear how this was chosen. There is a random "Selected Quote", and a random "Selected Panaroma".

2. For navigation, the portal just pastes-in the NavBox from the Main Article. It is clear from portal MfDs, that NavBoxes have replaced Portals for navigation – except for the rare Portals that are "mega-NavBoxes" (e.g. from Bermicourt) – and being transcluded across multiple articles, the NavBoxes are more up-to-date and scruitinized.

3. For guides to FA/GA articles, there is a list of the 1 lighthouse FA article and the 19 lighthouse GA articles. However, this is just a paste from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses, which has the full structured directory of all ranked lighthouse articles. Again, per navigation in 2. above, it is clear from portal MfDs that the WikiProjects are a better source for directories of ranked topic articles.

Therefore, what is the purpose of a tiny portal, consisting of a link to a long-standing tagged Main Article, a random link to a single lighthouse article and a single lighthouse picture, and a paste-in of the lighthouse NavBox and a partial paste-in of the lighthouse Wikiproject ranked article directory? A lighthouse enthusiast who comes to Wikipedia and sees a tagged Main Article is not going to feel positive about our credibility on this topic; however, if they are one of the few who click through to the portal, they are going to think lighthouses and Wikipedia failed several years ago.

We don't need to score own-goals – we have a lot of good lighthouse content. To the extent we have editing capacity in this topic, it should be fixing the Main Article. The Main Article has plenly of mouse-over links into the broader topic, plus a full NavBox, plus a link to the WikiProject with the full ranked directory of lighthouse articles. Band-aids aside, nobody really wants to maintain this portal for good reasons - because it adds nothing to the other WP tools on the topic (i.e. Main Article+NavBox+WikiProject Directory). Why spend time on this MfD defending something nobody wants, and which serves no purpose over better WP alternatives, while the Main Article on the topic will remain tagged for sections with no references??. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there was a time a decade ago when the lighthouse Main Article and NavBoxes (and even WikiProject article directory) were not really developed and thus a Lighthouse Portal was a way to capture "everything". However, I think in this case (and for many other Portals), the lighthouse Main Article (with NavBox blow + link to WikiProject) is now functioning as the Portal. The Main Article is the best, and most edited/scruitinized structured guide to the topic area (if it is not, it has failed as a main article, and we are in real trouble). Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Most should be aware so they don't sound uninformed that popups, categories and navboxs are not seen by the majority of our readers.--Moxy 🍁 20:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: What did you mean by yoor edit summary to my above edit: odc people just say the wrong thing over and ovet? Are you saying I am saying thr wrong thing over and over – what in my comment above is the "wrong thing"? Also, I have made no comment on the relative frequency of what readers view/see in terms of NavBoxes or Popups (no relevance in my comment), and I have never even referred to a Category? What are you trying to say here? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: your comment is pointless, because as you repeatedly remind us, portal links using {{Portal}} are not displayed to readers of the mobile view. So all these navigational devices (navboxes, categories and portals) are basically for desktop users only.

However, tooltip previews are provided in the Android app. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No one uses the app.....but your aware that {{portal}} doesn't work in mobile view yet you don't fix this with your mass non approved changes. It's even more upsetting to find this out....I simply though you were not read others comments on this point. --Moxy 🍁 02:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, as usual you are wrong on nearly every point.

My edits are simply housekeeping to remove or replace links to portals which have been deleted by consensus at MFD. They are now done by an approved bot: BHGbot 4.

I presume that there is a reason why {{portal}} doesn't work in mobile view. If you want to propose that {{portal}} be re-enabled in mobile view, then open an RFC ... but there is no way that I will even consider circumventing that restriction unless there is a clear community consensus to do so.

It would be truly wonderful if you could some day pay some attention to the core policy of WP:Consensus. But regardless of whether you make any progress in that respect, I will definitely not act on your unilateral demand to circumvent the status quo on mobile display of {{Portal}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is usually done when an action is seen as controversial, can you explain to the people here how enabling mobile view would disrupt things in any way? The main argument has steadily been a lack of editors, but there appears to be a solution in sight here. If the change is uncontroversial then it appears you are unwilling to do such an action as it would undermine the main argument about portal viewership. Please don't have this be the latter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that my !vote is being used for a different discussion on use of portals on mobile platforms, which should be conducted in a different forum. I didn't make any reference to different types of platform in my !vote, and it seems that both portals and NavBoxes cannot be viewed on mobiles so the point is moot relative to my !vote. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87, your relentless misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith are both despicable and tedious, as is your attempt to hijack this MFD in order to join Moxy in mounting a hobbyhorse about a matter which is not directly related to the MFD. (KK87, you just tried a similar stunt at ANI).

This is not complicated. Mobile view does not currently display categories, nav boxes or links generated by {{Portal}} etc. I have no idea how that came to be: I don't know whether there was an explicit decision to exclude portal links, or whether it was a side-effect of some other decision. If there was any explicit decision, I have no idea where and how it was made.

However, the no-mobile-display of {{Portal}}-generated links has been the status quo for several years, and Template:Portal is used on over 7 million pages. So there is at least an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for it.

I have not formed a view on whether the status quo is appropriate, and I wouldn't try to do so without being well-informed on how the status quo came to be. Neither you nor Moxy has chosen to share any knowledge you might have of how the status quo arose, so it is unclear on what basis you have formed your view, or why you choose to hector me to subvert the status quo.

But let me be very clear: even if I was strongly in favour of such a change, I would not make such a change without a clear and broad RFC-based WP:CONSENSUS to do so. WP:AWBRULES is very clear about this: "3 Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue".

If either or both of you want this change made, then follow the consensus-building process: propose it as an RFC at the Village Pump, and see if there is consensus. If there is such a consensus, then for technical reasons I am firmly of the view that it should be implemented as a standalone job by a bot, rather than sneaked into another job. So I will not add it to BHGbot 4. And since I am a volunteer like any other editor, then per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY I am free to make my own decision about whether to open a WP:BRFA request to do it myself ... and free to make that choice without sniping from either of you.

So, in summary, @Moxy and Knowledgekid87:: you two are asking me to break both the policy of WP:CONSENSUS and the WP:AWBRULES, and you are breaking WP:NOTCOMPULSORY by trying to smear me for not doing so. On all three points: I will simply say: you are both conducting yourselves despicably, by showing contempt for core policies. After being on the receiving end of some vile personal attacks today, I am not in the mood to take any more of this abusiveness from you two. Stop it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)